Half
a Million Children under Five are Dead and Dying in Iraq - Who is
responsible?

An
Interview with Denis Halliday  Former Assistant
Secretary-General of The United Nations

By
David Edwards

According to Unicef, the United
Nations Childrens Fund, 4,000 more children under five are
dying every month in Iraq than would have died before Western
sanctions were imposed. Over the eight years that these sanctions
have been in place, 500,000 extra children under five are estimated
to have died.

These are
extraordinary figures that lead directly to the question of
responsibility. For citizens of Western democracies it seems almost
inconceivable that we could be to blame. We have grown up in the sure
knowledge that the West is a cradle of democracy and human rights, a
centre of civilisation and sanity. During the Kosovo crisis last
year, President Clinton insisted, We are upholding our values
and advancing the cause of peace. We cannot respond to such tragedies
everywhere, but when ethnic conflict turns into ethnic cleansing
where we can make a difference, we must try, and that is clearly the
case in Kosovo. Likewise, Prime Minister Blair declared that
Kosovo was a new kind of war in which we were fighting for
values - a logical step, given that Blair had previously
announced, We will make the protection and promotion of human
rights a central part of our foreign policy.

In the case of Iraq,
the salient facts are very clear: Iraq is ruled by a ruthless and
violent dictator, Saddam Hussein; he presides over a country subject
to the most wide-ranging sanctions regime in modern history; and
thousands of Iraqi children are dying every month.

The claims and
counter-claims surrounding these facts are well-known: human rights
groups, and even leading figures within the United Nations, insist
that the sanctions regime imposed by the West, with food and vital
medicines blocked by the UN Sanctions Committee, is a primary cause
of this appalling rate of child mortality. In response, Western
governments argue that it is Saddam who has been deliberately
withholding food and medicines made available by the UNs
oil for food programme, and therefore it is he that is
responsible for the mass death of children, not Western
leaders.

With these claims in
mind, I interviewed Denis Halliday, former Assistant
Secretary-General of the United Nations, who resigned after 34 years
with the UN in September 1998. Halliday spoke to me over the phone
from New York on 17 March 2000. Since his resignation as humanitarian
co-ordinator in Iraq, his successor, Hans von Sponeck, also resigned
on February 13 of this year, asking, How long should the
civilian population of Iraq be exposed to such punishment for
something they have never done? Two days later, Jutta
Burghardt, head of the World Food Programme in Iraq, also resigned,
saying privately that what was being done to the people of Iraq was
intolerable.

I suggested to
Halliday that it must have been a huge wrench to resign from the
United Nations after 34 years of work. I asked him what specifically
it was that made him take such drastic nation?

I worked for
the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), I was involved in
development activity, working closely with governments trying to
address their issues of poverty and education and economic well being
 all very positive; Id do it all again tomorrow. Then I
allowed myself to get sucked into the management in New York: I was
Director of Personnel in UNDP for four years and Boutros-Ghali
promoted me to Assistant Secretary-General and made me head of Human
Resources for the UN itself. I volunteered to go to Baghdad and I set
about trying to make it work, and of course found out very quickly
that it does not work - it wasnt designed to work; its
not funded to work; its strangled by the Sanctions Committee of
the Security Council - and in a matter of six weeks I was already
trying to get the Security Council to assist me, but I got no support
whatsoever from the United Nations in New York. So then I spoke to
the French, Russian and Chinese ambassadors who are in Baghdad, with
the help of the Unicef man, and we set about doubling the programme
which we accomplished in fact in three or four months through the
Security Council.

Did these
changes happen solely on your initiative?

Absolutely, it
would never have happened, believe me, if we hadnt started that
process in Baghdad. But to come back to your question of exactly why
I resigned: after that development work, to preside over a programme
which in a sense was designed to stop deterioration but in fact did
no more than sustain an already unacceptable situation of high levels
of child mortality, adult mortality and malnutrition, I found this
was incompatible with my past, incompatible with my feelings about
the United Nations, and incompatible with the very United Nations
Charter itself and human rights themselves. There was no way I was
going to be associated with this programme and manage this ghastly
thing in Iraq, it was not a possibility for me. So I put in a year, I
did my best, we doubled the programme, but the problems
continued.

The British and
US Governments claim that there are plenty of foodstuffs and
medicines being delivered to Iraq, the problem is that they are being
cynically withheld by the Iraqi regime. In a letter to the New
Statesman recently, Peter Hain, Minister of State, wrote: The
oil for food programme has been in place for three years
and could have been operating since 1991 if Saddam had not blocked
it. The Iraqi people have never seen the benefits they should
have. Is there any truth in that?

Theres no
basis for that assertion at all. The Secretary-General has reported
repeatedly that there is no evidence that food is being diverted by
the government in Baghdad. We have 150 observers on the ground in
Iraq. Say the wheat ship comes in from god knows where, in Basra,
they follow the grain to some of the mills, they follow the flour to
the 49,000 agents that the Iraqi government employs for this
programme, then they follow the flour to the recipients and even
interview some of the recipients  there is no evidence of
diversion of foodstuffs whatever ever in the last two years. The
Secretary-General would have reported that.

What about
medical supplies? In January 1999, George Robertson, then defence
secretary, said, Saddam Hussein has in warehouses $275 million
worth of medicines and medical supplies which he refuses to
distribute.

We have had
problems with medical drugs and supplies - there have been delays
there. There are several good reasons for that. One, is that often
the Iraqi government did some poor contracting; so they contracted
huge orders - $5 million of aspirins or something  to some
small company that simply couldnt do the job and had to re-tool
and wasted three, four, five months maybe. So that was the first
round of mistakes. But secondly, the Sanctions Committee weighed in
and they would look at a package of contracts, maybe ten items, and
they would deliberately approve nine but block the tenth, knowing
full well that without the tenth item the other nine were of no use.
Those nine then go ahead  theyre ordered, they arrive -
and are stored in warehouses; so naturally the warehouses have stores
that cannot in fact be used because theyre waiting for other
components that are blocked by the sanctions
committee.

What was the
motive behind blocking the one item out of ten?

Because
Washington, and to a lesser extent London, have deliberately played
games through the Sanctions Committee with this programme for years
 its a deliberate ploy. For the British Government to say
that the quantities involved for vaccinating kids are going to
produce weapons of mass destruction, this is just nonsense.
Thats why Ive been using the word genocide,
because this is a deliberate policy to destroy the people of Iraq.
Im afraid I have no other view at this late
stage.

The British
government claims that Saddam is using the money from the oil
for food programme for anything other than food. Peter Hain,
for example, recently stated, Over $8 billion a year should be
available to Iraq for the humanitarian programme - not only for foods
and medicines, but also clean water, electricity and educational
material. No one should starve.

Of the $20
billion that has been provided through the oil for food
programme, about a third, or $7 billion, has been spent on UN
expenses, reparations to Kuwait and assorted compensation
claims. That leaves $13 billion available to the Iraqi government. If
you divide that figure by the population of Iraq, which is 22
million, it leave some $190 per head of population per year over 3
years  that is pitifully inadequate.

Does the West want
to hold on to Saddam? If so, why?

Bush or
somebody in the United States made a decision not to overthrow Saddam
Hussein. What is the motive? Traditionally the motive was that they
needed him to provide stability in Iraq, to keep Iraq together, to
avoid the Kurds going their way and the Shia perhaps going there way
in the South, and so on; and the Shia of course would threaten Saudi
Arabia and Kuwait, being Shia as opposed to Suni  so hes
a good enemy this man, hes great! Said Aburish in his new book
has said that the CIA has worked with him for 30 years. So there is a
ploy to keep him in power, but of course to destroy him at the same
time, to enable him to survive without having any capacity to
threaten his neighbours. If you look at the sales of US military
hardware, Saddam is the best salesman in town. I think over $100
billion has been sold to the Saudis, Kuwaitis, the Gulf states,
Turkey, Israel, and so on. Its thanks to Saddam. Just last week
they sold $6.2 billion of military aircraft to the United Arab
Emirates. What on earth does a little country need hardware like that
for? Saddam provides that  he should be getting a
cut.

How many people
share your views in the UN? Is it a widespread
feeling?

Well Ill
tell you, when I walk into the UN today, its so amusing; people
come up to me from nowhere, delegates and staff, and sort of look
both ways and whisper in my ear, Youre doing a great job,
keep it up! and then they run away. Theres a sort of a
fear, I think, that to be associated with Halliday now is dangerous
if you want a career in the UN; thats a sort of perception. In
fact I find a lot of people, particularly from the Arab Islamic
world, and the South, are so pleased that somebody from
the North has had the - whatever it is  to stand up and take on
this issue. Coming from them it has no credibility; coming from me it
has a certain amount of credibility. Of course Peter Hain is trying
to destroy that as quickly as he can. But I think Ive hung onto
some credibility in most quarters and I think the resignation of Hans
von Sponeck has underlined it. So I think between the two of us,
representing almost 65 years of experience, two and a half years of
managing the damn thing in Iraq, we both have exactly the same view,
and I think that says something. A BBC producer recently said to me,
Thats an indictment.

The Guardian
today reported Iraqs rejection of UN Resolution 1284 on the
grounds that it indicated no end to sanctions and arms inspections.
Whats your view of 1284?

Von Sponeck and
I have exactly the same view: its designed to fail, this
programme. First of all it took a year to assemble that resolution,
if you can believe that. Secondly, it gives the Iraqis no specifics:
it doesnt tell them exactly what is required, and when, in
terms of disarming. Thirdly, if you listen to Scott Ritter, they have
no nuclear, chemical or biological capacity left, but of course they
have the mental capacity, and they have the scientists - some of them
- and theyre always going to be there and theres nothing
you can do about that. And Dr. Hans Blix, former Director-General of
the International Atomic Energy Agency, very honestly, has said,
Look, I can go in there 24 hours a day for ten years and I will
never be able to say that there isnt a half a pound of chemical
left behind, or whatever; its just impossible. And
thats why this whole programme is futile. Weve got to
reopen a dialogue with Iraq, like weve done with North Korea.
We need to find out what the concerns of the Iraq government are now,
what can be done for the future.

Tariq Aziz, the
Iraqi foreign minister, says there wont be any significant
developments until after the US presidential elections. What do you
make of that?

I saw Tariq
Aziz in October and thats what he said to me also. The outgoing
lame duck US President normally never changes basic policy during the
election year, and I think that if Clinton tried hed be shot
down by the Congress - which is controlled by the Republicans after
all. He just couldnt get away with it. He hasnt got the
stature of a Nixon going to China, for example. And Gore and Bush,
both, are repeating the same old nonsense: Blame Saddam
Hussein, retain economic sanctions, without, I think,
understanding the humanitarian consequences.

Is there a
prospect of real change over, say, the next one or two
years?

Oh Christ I
hope it doesnt take that long, but you may well be right. No, I
think Johns film [Paying the Price  Killing the
Children of Iraq by John Pilger] has made a huge
difference, certainly in Britain and Ireland, but maybe in parts of
Europe, hopefully later in Australia and Canada, maybe someday in
this country. I think von Sponecks resignation has helped and
weve had some new statements in Congress and in Westminster
about the humanitarian infanticide: something is changing here, but
its just changing very very slowly. For example, Im going
up to Canada next week to testify to the House of Commons Foreign
Relations Committee. Hans von Sponeck and I will be in Washington on
the 3rd of May to testify in Congress or to speak to a Congressional
meeting. On the 6th of May, von Sponeck and I will be in London to do
a briefing. Were hoping to go to Brussels, to Paris, to Rome,
Berlin. I think its getting upstream into the area of
parliamentarians. In France, members of parliament have been very
active against economic sanctions. I just saw the Irish foreign
minister last week and hes also come out and is deeply
concerned about economic sanctions. There is a movement, a
recognition, that economic sanctions, in the case of Iraq in
particular, are a disastrous failure and are totally unacceptable as
a UN tool. In the meantime, the Secretary General, Im afraid,
is not saying this; hes talking about hurting the
children of Iraq, which is just outrageous: were killing the
children of Iraq. Im extremely disappointed with the
Secretary-General; he just doesnt have the courage to say what
really has got to be said. I wonder what Dag Hammarskjold [former
UN Secretary-General] would have made of this policy by now. I
think Hammarskjold would have spoken up a long time ago against a
programme like this - so its very sad to see this
happening.

Who, in your
view, is primarily responsible for the deaths of those 500,000
children under five?

All the members
of the Permanent Security Council, when they passed 1284, reconfirmed
that economic sanctions had to be sustained, knowing the
consequences. That constitutes intent to kill, because we
know that sanctions are killing several thousand per month. Now, of
the five permanent members, three abstained; but an abstention is no
better than a vote for, in a sense. Britain and America of course
voted for this continuation. The rest of them dont count
because theyre lackeys, or theyre paid off. The only
country that stood up was Malaysia, and they also abstained. But you
know, by abstaining instead of using your veto, when you are a
permanent member you're guilty because youre continuing
something that has this deadly impact. However, I would normally
point the finger at London and Washington, because they are the most
active in sustaining sanctions: they are the ones who will not
compromise. All the other members would back down if London and
Washington would change their position. I think thats quite
clear. But unfortunately Blair and Clinton have an almost personal
investment in demonising Saddam Hussein. Thats very hard to get
out of, they have my sympathy, but they created their own problem.
Once youve demonised somebody, its awfully difficult to
turn around and say, Well actually hes not such a bad
guy, he likes kids. Under the Baath Party regime, they ran a
social welfare system in Iraq that was so intense it was almost
claustrophobic, and they made damn sure that the average Iraqi was
well taken care of, and they did it deliberately to divert them from
any political activity and to maintain stability and allow them
(Baath Party) to run the country. [US Secretary of State]
Madeleine Albright has also fallen into the demonisation hole: her
whole career is linked to maintaining this policy, although she
didnt start it.

How do you feel
about the performance of the media in covering this issue? Has it
been adequate?

Im very
disappointed with the BBC. The BBC has been very aggressively in
favour of sanctions, I found, in the last couple of years. But
recently - as recently as three weeks ago - that changed. After the
von Sponeck resignation they did an introductory piece to a programme
I was on which was brilliant. It described the catastrophe
brilliantly. So even the BBC seems to be coming around. Here in the
United States the media has been disastrous, because the media in
this country is controlled by large corporations like Westinghouse,
like General Electric, which are arms manufacturers, and they
dont want to highlight the no fly zone bombing
which takes place almost every day, or all the other things: Raytheon
making Tomahawk missiles  by the way, theyre going into
Derry in Ireland  theyve just got the media under
control. Having said that, Ive been on all the networks here at
one time or another, but theyre not pushing it; it just dies
here. The New York Times gives usually three or four lines on
no fly zone bombing every couple of
days.

Have you been
heavily in demand since Pilgers film was shown? How many
interviews are you doing?

I cannot handle
the number of speaking engagements I get, Im turning them down.
Im doing on average, I would say, two talks a week and probably
three or four interviews, even in the slow times. When von Sponeck
resigned, I think I had 25 interviews in four days. People are tired
of Iraq; they want it to go away. I sympathise with that. I want it
to go away myself, but I want it of course resolved first. The
Americans just dont want to know about it; its too
uncomfortable. They dont want to be reminded that theyve
just spent $1.3 billion last year on bombing this
country.

Its awful
even to think about it, but there is a real racist undercurrent going
on here isnt there?

I fear so.
Iraqi kids dont count apparently. It is a racist problem, there
really is no question about that. Its ugly.